Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.24 seconds)
H. E. H. The Nizams Jewellery Trust vs Assistant Commissioner Of Wealth Tax & ... on 21 November, 1996 cites

Indian And Eastern Newspaper Society ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi on 31 August, 1979

However, in a subsequent decision, the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC) held that the said proposition given in Kalyanji Mavji and Co. (supra), was stated too widely and an error discovered on a reconsideration of the same material does not give him that power. Apart from this, it is well settled that there should be a nexus between the material on record and the belief that wealth has escaped assessment before the AO can get the jurisdiction to issue a notice under s. 17.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 571 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

The requirement of recording the reasons is only to ascertain whether such material existed which can lead to the belief of the AO that wealth has escaped assessment. The acceptation of the expression "has reasons to believe" is that the AO cannot rely on material other than what is recorded for the purpose of issuing the notice under s. 17. In the present case, the only reason given was that the trustees had not filed a separate return in respect of the residue assessable under s. 21(1A). When that reason fails, it is not possible for the Revenue to justify the notice on the basis of the reasons not recorded, because, if we accept such unrecorded reasons, it would be in violation of the safeguard provided in the proviso to s. 17. (See also Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 851). We are, therefore, unable to sustain the notices issued under s. 17. The impugned notices are, therefore, quashed. The writ petitions are allowed. No costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1   2 Next